The War Against Self Defense: Muslim Reflections on the Rittenhouse Case

The Rittenhouse trial not only saw the full force of the corporate media mobilize to slander and demonize a teenager for engaging in clear self defense, but it also featured prosecutorial misconduct that highlights the injustice of the secular legal order.

The liberal regime has always clamoured to take away the ability of the people to defend themselves, and this trial served to highlight some of their most nefarious methods.

Kyle was part of a group that organised to protect their community after police refused to respond to the 2 days of looting and arson for political reasons, which resulted in upwards of $50 million in damage to private property. This affected small local businesses the most, and while the political effort to eliminate small independent businesses is also to be highlighted, it is the topic for another day.

While protecting a local business from would be arsonists, Kyle was isolated by the mob and attacked by several rioters, who hit him over the head, attacked him with blunt objects, attempted to grab his gun and drew a gun to his head.

The two assailants he killed in self defense turned out to be a pederast with five victims ages ranging from nine to eleven, and a repeat domestic abuser who told his brother that if he didn’t start cleaning a room in his house he was going to “gut him like a pig” while holding a 6-inch butcher’s knife to the brother’s stomach. The third assailant, who pointed a gun at Kyle and got his bicep vaporised, also turned out to be an ex-felon associated with a group called “The People’s Revolution” who was not permitted to carry that weapon.

None of these assailants were black men, as some media outlets mistakenly reported.

The events of that day were captured on camera from many different angles, which allowed for legal commentators to analyse the action thoroughly.

It was telling even before the case that while independent legal commentators with integrity, including Andrew Branca, the preeminent legal expert on self defense law, concluded that the acts fit perfectly within legal self defense, the commentators on mainstream media sought to forge a narrative around villainising him being on the scene in the first place.

This was also present in the court room, which featured such hits from the prosecution as “everybody takes a beating,” by which the prosecutor tried to shame Kyle for not dropping his gun and allowing the assailants to beat him to a pulp.

This was the least of the prosecution’s evils, as the trial featured them violating Kyle’s constitutional rights in several ways. AP News reported:

Prosecutors brought up a prior incident the judge had previously ruled could not be raised at trial. Judge Bruce Schroeder admonished prosecutor Thomas Binger when he tried to raise it in front of the jury.

The judge also chided Binger, during cross-examination of Rittenhouse, for a line of questioning that the judge said was a commentary on Rittenhouse’s constitutional right to invoke silence after his arrest. “This is a grave constitutional violation for you to talk about the defendant’s silence,” Schroeder told the prosecutor. “You’re right on the borderline. And you may be over. But it better stop.”

Rittenhouse’s attorneys said prosecutors gave the defense a copy of the video in a lower quality, smaller file that made it less clear than what the state had. They argued the video was the “linchpin” to the prosecutors’ case and it was inconceivable that they wouldn’t provide the defense with the same quality version.

It is important to highlight the brazenness of the prosecutors, even in this highly publicised case which was broadcast live. One can only imagine the injustices visited upon people in cases where there is no public scrutiny and live coverage. While this bastion of “enlightened western rule of law” claims to afford many rights and procedural protections to the accused, in reality the state tramples over all of them whenever they want.

RELATED: The Intolerance, Brutality, and Burden of Secular Law

RELATED: Vaccine Religious Exemptions: Secular Law Won’t Protect You

This is why, even though Kyle was rightfully acquitted, the right to self defense is still under siege. Kyle had the advantage of his self defense having been captured on camera, almost $3 million raised for his bail and legal defense, and appearing before a seemingly sympathetic jury. It is unlikely that the next person who shoots in self defense will be afforded the same, and having seen what we have seen in court, it is unlikely that one can prevail without these advantages. This is certainly not by accident.

The co-prosecution, both in the court by the state and in the court of public opinion by the corporate media, is indicative of the disdain by which liberal western thought has come to abhor the concept of people being able to defend themselves. Even the president and the vice president of the United States have expressed their displeasure at the verdict.

This kind of demonization of anyone who dares to protect themselves or their property is nothing new, as the McCloskeys learned the hard way that you aren’t even allowed to arm yourself to deter violent rioters away from your house.

The secular state is always in search for more power, as it is the resulting tool of people who in submission to their greed and ego refuse to submit to their Maker. A monopoly of force, which would result naturally from the erosion of the right to defend oneself, one’s family and community, is for them both a goal in itself and a powerful tool: A population that cannot defend itself can be ruled through fear and abused into submission regarding anything else the state might want to impose.

The event that started all of this, the Kenosha riots, and the refusal by the state to deploy police, highlights that it is foolish to assume the state will reliably protect you, as the secular state operates on political expediency, not justice.

Our every other article on MuslimSkeptic also shows that there are many things that secular states want to impose upon you, your family, and your communities. These should serve as powerful reminders to safeguard your right to be armed and right to self defense.

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يَزِيدَ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدٌ ـ هُوَ ابْنُ أَبِي أَيُّوبَ ـ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الأَسْوَدِ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عَمْرٍو ـ رضى الله عنهما ـ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ ‏ “‏ مَنْ قُتِلَ دُونَ مَالِهِ فَهُوَ شَهِيدٌ ‏”‏‏.‏

I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, “Whoever is killed while protecting his property then he is a martyr.” [Sahih al-Bukhari 2480]

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
mustafa

When you feel you have to oppose every media coverage,
you end up being non-sense like this article sometimes, I guess.

I would like to remind you that Jacob Blake for whom those people protesting for and now is paralyzed is a Muslim (his family too).
You support a racist who killed people who were on the streets to support an oppressed Musllim family.

Saad

Bro here it’s about the concept of self defense!! (Concept of justice)

Baz

So it turns out that the Muslim skeptic are just like American far right wingers in being strong supporters of the 2nd amendment and the ordinary civilians population being flooded with guns. While I support the right of people to defend themselves (this can be done without firearms), the idea of allowing ordinary civilians to have guns is not suitable for every society in every country. The biggest example which proves that is Afghanistan whose new regime you lot tacitly support despite contradicting some of their policies.

When Afghanistan was flooded with guns among the general population, then they had the epidemic of crimes and civil wars between tribes and warlords. Then when Таlіbаn came and stormed to power (both in the 1990s and this year), one of the first things that they did is to completely ban ordinary people from having firearms, confiscate all guns from ordinary civilian populations, and strictly enforce a state monopoly on all violence and firearms. The result of this policy is that the civil wars ended and the rates of general crime (such as gun murders) plummet to almost zero, and the country becomes overall safer with low crime rates.

I’m not saying that guns should be banned for ordinary people in every country, but don’t promote this 2nd amendment idea of allowing ordinary civilians having guns being universal or suitable for all societies and countries everywhere. Within the context of this particular incident in America, it may have been more appropriate for you to demand the state and police to do their job instead of demanding the right to have more guns flooding your civilian hands. If the state did their basic job of providing security then there would be no need for a second amendment in America.